Electron beam characterization via fluorescence imaging of Rydberg states in atomic vapor

Alexandre Camsonne; Charlie Fancher; Eugeniy Mikhailov; Irina Novikova; Kevin Su; Mykhailo Vorobiov; Neel Malvania; Nicolas DeStefano; Rob Behary; Seth Aubin

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Electron beam characterization via fluorescence imaging of Rydberg states in atomic vapor

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reconstructs an electron beam's centroid, width, and current from the spatially varying fluorescence of Rydberg atoms in rubidium vapor, verified to 8 µm and 100 µm.

desk verdict A solid proof-of-principle for fluorescence-based Rydberg electrometry as an e-beam diagnostic: position and width are cross-validated, but the current reconstruction is an unverified fit parameter with a factor-of-two offset. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21144 v1 pith:RDONBWRW submitted 2025-04-29 physics.atom-ph nucl-exphysics.acc-phquant-ph

Rob Behary , Kevin Su , Nicolas DeStefano , Mykhailo Vorobiov , T. Averett , Alexandre Camsonne , Shukui Zhang , Charlie Fancher

show 4 more authors

Neel Malvania Eugeniy Mikhailov Seth Aubin Irina Novikova

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phnucl-exphysics.acc-phquant-ph

keywords RydbergelectrometryelectronbeamdiagnosticselectromagneticallyinducedtransparencyfluorescenceimagingdcStarkshiftatomicvaporprofilereconstructionnon-invasivemonitor

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Beam diagnostics usually intercept the beam or rely on large dedicated instrumentation; this paper claims that the electric field around an electron beam can be captured all-optically with a dilute rubidium vapor, two lasers, and one camera. The atoms are prepared in a Rydberg EIT configuration, and the beam's dc field shifts the Rydberg resonance in a spatially varying way, producing a distorted fluorescence pattern. Fitting that pattern to the analytic field of a Gaussian electron beam recovers the beam's center-of-mass position to within 8 µm, its width to within 100 µm, and a current reading that tracks a Faraday cup linearly but sits about a factor of two higher. The contribution is a proof of principle: one non-contact optical measurement can report several beam parameters at once and, in principle, work for charged particle beams of any energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pixel-resolved Rydberg EIT fluorescence spectrum: a dilute Rb vapor is driven on the two-photon ladder $5S_{1/2}\to 5P_{3/2}\to 58D_{5/2}$ by counter-propagating 780 nm probe and 480 nm coupling beams, and a CCD images the probe fluorescence through an IR filter while the coupling laser is swept across the Rydberg resonance. The local dc electric field shifts the $|m_j|$ sublevels quadratically, with the shifts taken from a numerically solved Stark map, so each image pixel carries a frequency-shifted EIT spectrum fit by Eq. (2) with the field magnitude as the only free parameter. The resulting field map is matched to Eq. (3), the analytic radial field of a Gaussian electron beam, with free parameters $\sigma$, $I$, $\Delta z$, and $y$; the finite laser width is folded into the fit. This chain converts a single fluorescence movie into beam parameters.

What would settle it

Place a Faraday cup or scanning wire harp exactly where the laser crosses the beam and compare its reading with the reconstructed current; a persistent factor-of-two offset after correcting for stray fields and beam clipping would show the field-to-beam model is wrong. Independently, send a deliberately elliptical electron beam through the vapor and check whether the recovered width still matches an independent image.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a new use of Rydberg electrometry as a spatially resolved charged-particle-beam diagnostic. In a dilute Rb vapor, a 780 nm probe and a 480 nm coupling laser create EIT on the $58D_{5/2}$ Rydberg state; a CCD camera records infrared fluorescence while the coupling laser sweeps, giving a per-pixel EIT spectrum. The quadratic dc Stark shift of the Rydberg sublevels shifts these spectra according to the local electric field magnitude, and fitting each spectrum with a three-resonance model yields a one-dimensional field map across the vapor. Fitting that map with the analytic field of a radially symmetric Gaussian beam, $E(r)=\frac{I}{2\pi\epsilon_0 v_e r}\left(1-e^{-r^2/\sigma^2}\right)$, returns the beam width $\sigma$, centroid displacement, and current $I$. The authors verify width and position against electron-impact fluorescence images of the beam and show a linear but factor-of-two current correlation with a Faraday cup, which they attribute to beam clipping before the cup and to unmodeled background fields.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes the measured electric field is produced only by a single, round, smoothly varying electron beam and that the magnitude of that field alone, not its direction, is what shifts the Rydberg levels; if stray charges on the cell windows or walls overlap the beam region, the fitted width, position, and especially current are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single camera plus two lasers can report centroid, width, and current simultaneously, replacing intercepting screens or wire scanners with a measurement that leaves the beam undisturbed.
The demonstrated floor of about 20 µA at 20 keV, with a minimum detectable field near 0.02 V/cm, makes the technique viable for low-current beams where synchrotron or Compton diagnostics are unavailable.
The same field-map procedure should transfer to any charged particle energy, and replacing the probe beam with a light sheet would turn the one-dimensional line into a full transverse beam image.
Because the reconstructed current is linear in the Faraday cup reading, the method is ready to act as a relative current monitor, and a single co-located in situ calibration would make it absolute.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Not in the paper: resolving the electric field direction, for example through $|m_j|$-selective or polarization-sensitive readout, would allow stray surface-charge fields to be vector-subtracted, which would likely remove much of the current offset and clean up the width fits near the cell walls.
Not in the paper: replacing the Gaussian-field model with a simulated field from any computed charge distribution would turn the same fluorescence data into a tomographic profile of non-Gaussian or asymmetric beams.
Not in the paper: pairing this electric-field diagnostic with magnetic-field reconstruction from the same vapor would give two independent estimates of beam current and velocity that cross-check each other without extra hardware.
Not in the paper: the 8 µm centroid precision at 20 keV suggests the technique could double as a continuous, non-intercepting alignment monitor during machine tuning.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I agree with the reader's conditional verdict. This is a solid proof-of-principle for an all-optical e-beam diagnostic, but the current measurement claim is not yet supported. The new thing here is applying fluorescence-based Rydberg electrometry—two-photon EIT fluorescence imaging from [20,31]—to map the dc field of an electron beam and fit it to a Gaussian-beam forward model. The building blocks are cited, and the combination is a practical advance, not a fundamental one.

The paper earns credit for cross-validating the two quantities that matter most: centroid position, quoted to 8 µm, and width, agreed with beam-impact fluorescence to ~100 µm. That independent check is the strongest part of the paper; it shows the reconstruction pipeline works. The authors also handle the background-field problem honestly. They say their fit model ignores field direction and that unknown background fields can bias the result. They note the reconstructed current is about two times the Faraday-cup reading and call for a co-located harp scanner to verify it.

The soft spot is exactly the current. Eq. (3) fits only the magnitude of the total field, so a background field of unknown direction will distort the amplitude scale (current) more than the shape (position, width). That matches what they observe. With no in-situ current reference and a factor-of-two offset, I would not call this a validated current measurement. The position and width claims, by contrast, stand on the IF comparison.

Minor issues: the finite laser size is folded into the fit but not fully described; the fixed EIT parameters (w_|mj|, γ_EIT) could carry a constant offset, though one that would most likely affect E values, not the shape. No code or raw data are included, so reproducibility is limited, but the method is described in enough detail for a motivated group to implement.

Who is this for? Accelerator diagnostic people and atomic physics groups looking for minimally invasive beam probes. A serious referee can engage with it: the experimental work is careful, the limitations are acknowledged, and the positional result is genuinely useful. The current claim should be relabeled as preliminary or removed from the headline. I'd send it to peer review with that request.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript demonstrates an all-optical, minimally invasive electron-beam diagnostic based on imaging the fluorescence of Rydberg EIT in rubidium vapor. A 20 keV electron beam passes through the vapor, and the dc electric field of the beam shifts the Rydberg sublevels, producing spatially resolved EIT spectra. The authors fit the reconstructed electric-field profile to an analytical model of a Gaussian beam and extract beam width, centroid position, and current. Position and width are cross-validated against beam-induced fluorescence, while current is compared with a Faraday cup but found to be about twice as large. The paper reports a reconstructed beam position to within 8 µm and width to within 100 µm, and proposes the method as a promising minimally invasive diagnostic.

Significance. The method is potentially significant as a non-destructive beam diagnostic that could extend to two-dimensional and three-dimensional profile reconstruction. The use of ARC-calculated Stark maps, the demonstration at 20 keV beam energy and microampere currents, and the quantitative cross-check of position and width against an independent technique are notable strengths. However, the unsupported current measurement limits the central claim of simultaneous multi-parameter beam characterization, so the significance of the work depends on the resolution of this issue.

major comments (2)

[Eq. (3) and the following paragraph] The reconstructed beam current is a free parameter in the fit to Eq. (3), and the measured EIT signal depends on the magnitude of the total electric field, not on the field direction. Because the model in Eq. (3) contains no background-field term, parasitic fields in the beam region bias the fitted amplitude scale more strongly than the fitted shape parameters. The factor-of-two discrepancy with the Faraday cup is acknowledged but not resolved; without an in-situ current reference or a background-field vector in the model, the claim in the conclusion to 'measure the beam current in a simultaneous measurement' is not supported. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim.
[Eq. (3) and Fig. 3(b)] The fit assumes a radially symmetric Gaussian transverse profile, yet the paper reports asymmetric profiles in both the EIT and IF measurements, attributing the asymmetry to background fields. The systematic uncertainty of the fitted width and position from this asymmetry is not quantified. While the agreement with IF at a particular operating point is reassuring, it is unclear how robust the 100 µm width and 8 µm position claims are when background fields are present, especially because the model does not include the background field direction.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 1 caption] There is a typo in the figure caption: 'ane-beam' should be 'an e-beam'.
[Eq. (1)] The notation h·∆f is unusual; writing h∆f would be clearer.
[Eq. (3)] The definition of σ as the 'half-width at half maximum' is inconsistent with the exponent exp(-r^2/σ^2), for which the HWHM is σ√(ln 2). Please clarify the exact definition and use consistent notation.
[Fig. 2(c)] The minimum detectable field (E_min ≈ 0.02 V/cm) is stated in the text but not clearly visible in the figure; adding a labeled marker or annotation would improve readability.
[Eq. (2)] The parameters w_|mj| and γ_EIT are said to be empirical and constant for all fits; please specify how they were determined and whether their uncertainties propagate into the reconstructed electric field values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the E-field map is reconstructed from independent spectral fits and the beam parameters are fit to an analytical field model with separate IF and Faraday-cup checks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Per-pixel EIT spectra are fit with Eq. (2), in which the only field-related free parameter is the electric-field magnitude E and the Rydberg-state shifts come from the external ARC Stark-map library [32]. The resulting spatially resolved E(r) curve is then fit to Eq. (3), the standard electric-field expression for a radially symmetric Gaussian electron beam, with free parameters sigma, I, Delta z, and y. This is an inverse problem, not a self-definition: Eq. (2) does not assume the Gaussian beam model, and Eq. (3) is not fitted to either the Faraday-cup current or the beam-impact-fluorescence profile. Position and width are cross-checked against an independent in situ fluorescence measurement, and the reconstructed current is compared with an independent Faraday-cup reading. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the model ignores the direction of background electric fields and that the reconstructed current is about twice the Faraday-cup value, with no co-located current monitor for in situ verification. That is a validation gap and a possible systematic error, but it is not circularity: the current is a fitted parameter being reported, not a prediction statistically forced by the same data used to define it. Self-citations to the fluorescence imaging technique [20,31] describe the detection procedure but do not supply the e-beam reconstruction result or its benchmarks. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two empirical fit layers. First, each pixel spectrum is fit to Eq. (2) with empirical weights and a fixed linewidth to obtain a local electric field magnitude. Second, the resulting field profile is fit to Eq. (3) with sigma, I, and offsets as free parameters to obtain beam properties. Width and position are validated against an independent IF signal, but the current is not independently verified and returns a factor-of-two offset. The method does not invent new physical entities; its correctness depends on the Gaussian beam model, the ARC Stark map, the EIT line-shape model, and an implicit treatment of background electric fields. These assumptions are stated or flagged in the text.

free parameters (5)

Rydberg sublevel weights w_|mj| in Eq. (2) = not reported
Set empirically and held constant for all EIT spectral fits; they control the relative amplitudes of the three resonances and affect the recovered electric field magnitude.
EIT linewidth gamma_EIT = not reported
Fixed for all fits; this linewidth determines the minimum detectable shift and therefore the field sensitivity.
e-beam width sigma = 1.1 +/- 0.1 mm (Rydberg), 1.07 +/- 0.06 mm (IF)
Free parameter in the Eq. (3) fit; central output of the diagnostic, validated by IF.
e-beam current I = recovered values about 2x Faraday cup readings
Free parameter in Eq. (3); reconstructed current is not independently verified at the laser location, and the factor-of-two offset is unexplained.
beam displacements Delta_z and y = position recovered to within 8 um vs IF
Free parameters in Eq. (3); used to locate the beam centroid in the reconstructed field map.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The electric field produced by a Gaussian transverse electron beam is given by Eq. (3), with radial symmetry and no axial variation along the laser line.
The paper fits the reconstructed E-field map to Eq. (3) and treats sigma, I, and displacements as free parameters; non-Gaussian or asymmetric beam profiles will bias all three outputs. Eq. (3), Fig. 2(c).
domain assumption The ARC Stark map correctly interpolates dc Stark shifts of the 58D5/2 sublevels.
The conversion from spectral shift to electric field uses ARC's numerically solved Stark map [32]; any error in that map propagates directly into the reconstructed field values. Text near Eq. (1).
domain assumption The fluorescence spectrum at each pixel is a sum of three Gaussian EIT resonances with fixed empirical weights and linewidth (Eq. (2)).
Field extraction assumes the model form and that w_|mj| and gamma_EIT are constant; if line shapes change with field or position, the fitted E is biased. Eq. (2).
domain assumption Beam impact fluorescence (IF) accurately represents the e-beam position and size in the chamber.
IF is the independent reference used to validate the Rydberg-based width and centroid; if IF is distorted by wall charging or optical effects, the validation is weakened. Fig. 2(d), Fig. 3(c).
ad hoc to paper Background electric fields from chamber charging are small in the beam region or can be ignored in the Eq. (3) fit.
The paper observes strong background fields near cell edges and states their unknown direction may add systematic error, but the fit model has no explicit background term. This assumption is load-bearing for current and width accuracy. Limitations paragraph.
domain assumption The Faraday cup current is a valid reference for the beam current at the laser crossing.
Used to evaluate reconstructed current in Fig. 3(d); the authors note the factor-of-two offset may stem from beam clipping before the cup and that no in-situ current measurement exists. This assumption is explicitly uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron beam characterization via fluorescence imaging of Rydberg states in atomic vapor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDONBWRW

@misc{pith2026250421144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron beam characterization via fluorescence imaging of Rydberg states in atomic vapor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDONBWRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21144}
}

abstract

We demonstrate an all-optical, minimally invasive method for electron beam (e-beam) characterization using Rydberg electrometry. The e-beam passes through a dilute Rb vapor prepared in a quantum superposition of ground and Rydberg states that reduces resonant absorption in a narrow spectral region. Imaging the modifications of Rb fluorescence due to shifts in the Rydberg state from the e-beam electric field allows us to reconstruct e-beam width, centroid position, and current. We experimentally demonstrate this technique using a 20 keV e-beam in the range of currents down to 20 $\mu$A, and discuss technical challenges produced by environmental electric potentials in the detection chamber. Overall, we demonstrate the promising potential of such an approach as a minimally invasive diagnostic for charged particle beams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21144 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Overview of experimental design. (a) A charged particle beam produces an electric field and passes through a cloud of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Demonstration of fluorescence based measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Salehilashkajani, H

A. Salehilashkajani, H. D. Zhang, M. Ady, N. Chritin, P. Forck, J. Glutting, O. R. Jones, R. Kersevan, N. Kumar, T. Lefevre, T. Marriott-Dodington, S. Mazzoni, I. Papazoglou, A. Rossi, G. Schnei- der, O. Sedlacek, S. Udrea, R. Veness, and C. P. Welsch, A gas curtain beam profile monitor us- ing beam induced fluorescence for high intensity charged particle...

work page doi:10.1063/5.0085491/16480328/174101 2022
[2]

D. P. Sandoval, R. C. Garcia, J. D. Gilpatrick, M. A. Shinas, R. Wright, V. Yuan, and M. E. Zander, Fluorescence-based video profile beam diagnostics: The- ory and experience, AIP Conf. Proc. 319, 273 (1994)

work page 1994
[3]

Hofmann, Electron and proton beam diagnostics with synchrotron radiation, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2131 (1981)

A. Hofmann, Electron and proton beam diagnostics with synchrotron radiation, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2131 (1981)

work page 1981
[4]

D. Rule, Transition radiation diagnostics for intense charged particle beams, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 24-25, 901 (1987)

work page 1987
[5]

Ponce, R

L. Ponce, R. Jung, and F. Meot, LHC proton beam diag- nostics using synchrotron radiation , Tech. Rep. (2004)

work page 2004
[6]

Chouffani, F

K. Chouffani, F. Harmon, D. Wells, J. Jones, and G. Lan- caster, Laser-compton scattering as a tool for electron beam diagnostics, Laser and Particle Beams 24, 411 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Blair, Laser based beam diagnostics, EUROTeV- Report-2008-027 (2008)

G. Blair, Laser based beam diagnostics, EUROTeV- Report-2008-027 (2008)

work page 2008
[8]

Tzoganis, H

V. Tzoganis, H. D. Zhang, A. Jeff, and C. P. Welsch, Design and first operation of a supersonic gas jet based beam profile monitor, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 062801 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 36 references

[9]

Castro Sequeiro, M

C. Castro Sequeiro, M. Ady, G. Bregliozzi, N. Chatzi- georgiou, A. R. Churchman, R. Kersevan, T. Lefevre, S. Mazzoni, G. Pigny, A. Rossi, M. Sameed, G. Schneider, O. Sedlacek, K. Sidorowski, C. Vazquez Pelaez, R. Ve- ness, L. Zygaropoulos, O. Stringer, A. Webber-Date, C. P. We...

2024
[10]

T. F. Gallagher, Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

1994
[11]

Schlossberger, N

N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, A. P. Ro- tunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, A. A. Sheikh, E. B. Norrgard, S. P. Eckel, and C. L. Holloway, Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as si- traceable field probes and communications receivers, Na- tur...

2024
[12]

M. T. Simons, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. K. Robin- son, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, Rydberg atom- based sensors for radio-frequency electric field metrology, sensing, and communications, Measurement: Sensors 18, 100273 (2021)

2021
[13]

C. T. Fancher, D. R. Scherer, M. C. S. John, and B. L. S. Marlow, Rydberg atom electric field sensors for commu- nications and sensing, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021)

2021
[14]

C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, A. Di- enstfrey, D. A. Anderson, and G. Raithel, Electric field metrology for si traceability: Systematic measure- ment uncertainties in electromagnetically induced trans- parency in atomic vapor, Journal of Applied Physics121, 233106 (2017)

2017
[15]

P. K. Elgee, J. C. Hill, K.-J. E. LeBlanc, G. D. Ko, P. D. Kunz, D. H. Meyer, and K. C. Cox, Satellite radio detec- tion via dual-microwave rydberg spectroscopy, Applied Physics Letters 123, 084001 (2023)

2023
[16]

M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, and C. L. Holloway, Fiber- coupled vapor cell for a portable rydberg atom-based ra- dio frequency electric field sensor, Appl. Opt. 57, 6456 (2018)

2018
[17]

L. A. Downes, L. Torralbo-Campo, and K. J. Weath- erill, A practical guide to terahertz imaging using ther- mal atomic vapour, New Journal of Physics 25, 035002 (2023)

2023
[18]

L. A. Downes, A. R. MacKellar, D. J. Whiting, C. Bourgenot, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Full- field terahertz imaging at kilohertz frame rates using atomic vapor, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011027 (2020)

2020
[19]

Schlossberger, A

N. Schlossberger, A. P. Rotunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, D. Shylla, M. T. Simons, and C. L. Holloway, Zeeman-resolved autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms with tunable resonances and a single transition dipole moment, Phys. Rev. A 109, L021702 (2024)

2024
[20]

Schlossberger, T

N. Schlossberger, T. McDonald, K. Su, R. Talashila, R. Behary, C. L. Patrick, D. Hammerland, E. E. Mikhailov, S. Aubin, I. Novikova, C. L. Holloway, and N. Prajapati, Two-dimensional imaging of electromag- netic fields via light sheet fluorescence imaging with ryd- berg atoms ...

2024
[21]

Schlossberger, A

N. Schlossberger, A. P. Rotunno, S. P. Eckel, E. B. Norrgard, D. Manchaiah, N. Prajapati, A. B. Artusio- Glimpse, S. Berweger, M. T. Simons, D. Shylla, W. J. Watterson, C. Patrick, A. Meraki, R. Talashila, A. Younes, D. S. La Mantia, and C. L. Holloway, Primary quantum thermom...

2025
[22]

DeStefano, S

N. DeStefano, S. Pegahan, A. Ramaswamy, S. Aubin, T. Averett, A. Camsonne, S. Malinovskaya, E. E. Mikhailov, G. Park, S. Zhang, and I. Novikova, Elec- tron beam characterization via quantum coherent opti- cal magnetometry, Applied Physics Letters 125, 264001 (2024)

2024
[23]

M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2001)

2001
[24]

Finkelstein, S

R. Finkelstein, S. Bali, O. Firstenberg, and I. Novikova, A practical guide to electromagnetically induced trans- parency in atomic vapor, New Journal of Physics 25, 035001 (2023)

2023
[25]

Keaveney, A

J. Keaveney, A. Sargsyan, D. Sarkisyan, A. Papoyan, and C. S. Adams, Active narrowband filtering, line narrowing and gain using ladder electromagnetically induced trans- parency in an optically thick atomic vapour, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47...

2014
[26]

Ma, Electromagnetic Field Sensing with Rydberg Atoms in Vapor Cells , Ph.D

L. Ma, Electromagnetic Field Sensing with Rydberg Atoms in Vapor Cells , Ph.D. thesis, University of Michi- gan (2021)

2021
[27]

L. Ma, E. Paradis, and G. Raithel, Dc electric fields in electrode-free glass vapor cell by photoillumination, Opt. Express 28, 3676 (2020)

2020
[28]

Jau and T

Y.-Y. Jau and T. Carter, Vapor-cell-based atomic elec- trometry for detection frequencies below 1 khz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 054034 (2020)

2020
[29]

K. Su, R. Behary, S. Aubin, E. E. Mikhailov, and I. Novikova, Two-photon rydberg eit resonances in non- collinear beam configurations, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 42, 757 (2025)

2025
[30]

P. B. Weichman, Doppler sensitivity and resonant tun- ing of rydberg atom-based antennas, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 165501 (2024)

2024
[31]

Patrick, N

L. Patrick, N. Schlossberger, D. F. Hammerland, N. Pra- japati, T. McDonald, S. Berweger, R. Talashila, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, and C. L. Holloway, Imaging of induced surface charge distribution effects in glass vapor cells used for rydberg atom-based sensors (2025), arXiv:2502...

2025 arXiv
[32]

ˇSibali´ c, J

N. ˇSibali´ c, J. Pritchard, C. Adams, and K. Weatherill, Arc: An open-source library for calculating properties of alkali rydberg atoms, Computer Physics Communica- tions 220, 319 (2017)

2017
[33]

Ugoletti, C

M. Ugoletti, C. Ballage, T. Minea, G. Se- rianni, O. Vasilovici, and M. Agostini, Visi- ble cameras as a tool to study electron beam shape, Review of Scientific Instruments 96, 023705 (2025), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0243793/20380771/023705 1 5.0...

2025 doi
[34]

marshall and fran- cis r

Wsb, Fourier transforms in nmr, optical, and mass spec- trometry, a user’s handbook: Alan g. marshall and fran- cis r. verdun.elsevier, amsterdam and new york, 1990. 450 pages. paperback, $49.95. isbn 0444874127, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 93 (1991)

1991
[35]

E. E. Mikhailov, I. Novikova, M. D. Havey, and F. A. Narducci, Magnetic field imaging with atomic rb vapor, Opt. Lett. 34, 3529 (2009)

2009
[36]

Mordjick, I

S. Mordjick, I. Novikova, E. Mikhailov, and S. Aubin, Optical quantum sensing diagnostic development for non- invasive measurements of electric and magnetic fields in plasmas (2024), dOE BRN Workshop on Measurement Innovation, Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Salehilashkajani, H

A. Salehilashkajani, H. D. Zhang, M. Ady, N. Chritin, P. Forck, J. Glutting, O. R. Jones, R. Kersevan, N. Kumar, T. Lefevre, T. Marriott-Dodington, S. Mazzoni, I. Papazoglou, A. Rossi, G. Schnei- der, O. Sedlacek, S. Udrea, R. Veness, and C. P. Welsch, A gas curtain beam profile monitor us- ing beam induced fluorescence for high intensity charged particle...

work page doi:10.1063/5.0085491/16480328/174101 2022

[2] [2]

D. P. Sandoval, R. C. Garcia, J. D. Gilpatrick, M. A. Shinas, R. Wright, V. Yuan, and M. E. Zander, Fluorescence-based video profile beam diagnostics: The- ory and experience, AIP Conf. Proc. 319, 273 (1994)

work page 1994

[3] [3]

Hofmann, Electron and proton beam diagnostics with synchrotron radiation, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2131 (1981)

A. Hofmann, Electron and proton beam diagnostics with synchrotron radiation, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 28, 2131 (1981)

work page 1981

[4] [4]

D. Rule, Transition radiation diagnostics for intense charged particle beams, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 24-25, 901 (1987)

work page 1987

[5] [5]

Ponce, R

L. Ponce, R. Jung, and F. Meot, LHC proton beam diag- nostics using synchrotron radiation , Tech. Rep. (2004)

work page 2004

[6] [6]

Chouffani, F

K. Chouffani, F. Harmon, D. Wells, J. Jones, and G. Lan- caster, Laser-compton scattering as a tool for electron beam diagnostics, Laser and Particle Beams 24, 411 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Blair, Laser based beam diagnostics, EUROTeV- Report-2008-027 (2008)

G. Blair, Laser based beam diagnostics, EUROTeV- Report-2008-027 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Tzoganis, H

V. Tzoganis, H. D. Zhang, A. Jeff, and C. P. Welsch, Design and first operation of a supersonic gas jet based beam profile monitor, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 062801 (2017)

work page 2017